Munro

Munro v. Pacific Coast Dredging & Reclamation Co.

Good Law
1890 Cal. LEXIS 832·84 Cal. 515·24 P. 303
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 12, 1890No. 12481California2,787 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Thornton, J.

This action is brought to recover damages for death caused by the negligent explosion by defendant of a blast in the city of San Francisco, whereby the plaintiff’s intestate was killed.

The demurrer to the complaint was properly overruled. The allegations as to the appointment of Munro as administrator of the deceased, Stanton, were sufficient.

The court committed no error in its rulings on the admission of testimony.

The court gave, at the request of plaintiff, the following instruction to the jury:—

To the giving of this instruction the defendant excepted.

*519 It is contended now, on behalf of defendant, that this direction was erroneous, because it removed from, the jury the consideration of all the issues, except that the defendant fired and exploded the blast, and that it resulted in Stanton’s death; that there were other issues in the case, but by this instruction they were brushed aside.

We find no error in this instruction. The language in the first clause, that “the defendant, through its agents, servants, and employees, fired and exploded the blast,” is qualified by the words “ as charged in the plaintiff's complaint”; and the complaint set forth a careless and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.